= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
faul_sname comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (513)
Kahneman and Tversky's Thinking Fast and Slow is basically the sequences + some statistics - AI and metaethics in (shorter) book form (well actually, the other way around, as the book was there first). So perhaps we should say "read the sequences, or that book, or otherwise learn the common mistakes".
Strongly disagree; I think there is fairly limited overlap between the two.
Your comment describes (or at least intends to describe as per the people disagreeing with you) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, not Thinking Fast and Slow.
Can someone verify this for me? I've heard good things about the authors but my prior for that book containing everything in the (or most of the) sequences is rather low.
I disagree with the grandparent. I read the book a while ago having already read most of the Sequences -- I think that the book gives a fairly good overview of heuristics and biases but doesn't do as good of a job in turning the information into helpful intuitions. I think that the Sequences cover most (but not quite all) of what's covered in the book, while the reverse is not true.
Lukeprog reviewed the book here: his estimate is that it contains about 30% of the Core Sequences.
The reasoning for downvote on this suggestion is not clear. What does the downvoter actually want less of?
As the suggestion stands, it's at -2. I'm not downvoting it because I don't think it's so bad as to be invisible, but saying that the book is a good substitute for the sequences seems inaccurate enough to downvote. My other comment here contains (slightly) more of an explanation.